Friday September 8, 2017 is International Literacy Day, a time to acknowledge the importance of education, learning and skill development in a rapidly evolving world. Adult literacy programs are vital to Canadians who try to build better lives for themselves and their families. Workers need these programs to gain the essential skills required to participate in our increasingly digital economy. Family literacy programs support skill-building opportunities for children while encouraging essential skill development for parents.

To simply cut funding off to literacy programs doesn’t make economic or moral sense, but that is exactly what is happening. The four Atlantic Literacy Coalitions requested $600,000 – $150,000 of funding for core programs for each, but were denied. The result is that the PEI Literacy Alliance, the long-running not-for-profit provincial organization that has provided tutoring programs, learner scholarships and learning materials to PE Islanders of all ages for more than 25 years will have to close. PEI Literacy Alliance acting executive director Amanda Beazley says the funding cut will force them to shut down this winter, leaving more than 700 children without access to free tutoring.

“Almost 50% of Atlantic Canadians do not have the literacy and essential skills required to work and thrive in a knowledge-based, digital society,” says Literacy Nova Scotia executive director Jayne Hunter. “There has never been a more important time to support adult and family literacy programs, and it is heartbreaking not to have the federal core funding to do so.”

“As our jobs require more and more technical and digital competency, and as we have less time for informal learning with our families because of work schedules, the importance of literacy and essential skill development becomes urgent. Together, our Atlantic provincial literacy coalitions could accomplish a great deal, but Literacy Newfoundland and Labrador closed its doors in 2015, and the impending closure of the PEI Literacy Alliance leaves just us and the Literacy Coalition of New Brunswick to fill a void that is getting larger.”

The federal government must restore core funding to literacy organizations across Canada. Without federal funding, literacy organizations are being forced to reduce critical programs offered and turn away those in need of skills training. Without these programs, thousands of people will not be able to build the skills they need to get better jobs and earn family sustaining wages.

Literacy Nova Scotia (LNS) helps ensure that practitioners can meet the needs of adult learners through certified training and ongoing professional development opportunities. LNS provides referral services, financial supports, resources in the classroom including technology, and funding enhanced learning opportunities. Without federal core funding, our organizational capacity continues to erode and our ability to leverage funds for important project work is significantly diminished.

Donna Wood has published “The Seventy-Five Year Decline – How Government Expropriated Employment Insurance from Canadian Workers and Employers and Why this Matters” through the Mowat Centre. Here’s a brief description:

In the latest paper from the Mowat Centre, University of Victoria’s Donna Wood — one of Canada’s foremost experts on EI — argues that Canada’s employment insurance system has in effect been expropriated by the federal government at the expense of workers and employers.

Wood explains that the system was originally designed to be co-managed and co-funded by employers, workers and the federal government. But a decades-long succession of government decisions have taken over the program while simultaneously ceasing to fund it. The result is that the businesses and workers that pay for the program have no meaningful say in it. Wood concludes by discussing how effective input from workers and employers can be reintroduced into Canada’s EI system.

Donna’s paper provides an excellent history of EI, as well as the social partnership between business, labour and government that used to guide decisions. It is well worth taking the time to read.

Last week, the Ontario Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development announced an increase of $85 million over for years for the Literacy and Basic Skills (LBS) program bringing that program’s total budget to $185 million by 2020 – 2021.

In the first year, the funding will go to:

Across-the-board increases for all LBS service delivery sites, e-Channel service providers, support organizations, and regional networks.

An increase in learners served, including serving learners in high demand communities, and through e-channel.

Improvements to digital capacity and IT equipment across the LBS network.

The launch of innovative literacy and essential skills training pilots to reach more learners.

This is permanent change to the funding levels, that is, the additional funds will be added to the base budget.

The following sentence from a Q&A sheet issued by the ministry states:

The ministry has set a goal of supporting more than 80,000 new learners over four years through the $185 million investment in essential skills training for adults, to be provided through the LBS funding envelope.

What I found interesting about the above quote is the reference to “essential skills training for adults, to be provided through the LBS funding envelope.” I am not sure why the reference to “essential skills training” as if this is different from what LBS typically provides.

The recent LBS evaluation report found there are 37,294 in-person learners and 5,587 are e-Channel learners although many might be ‘blended learners’, that is, taking both in-person and on-line learning. The planned increase in the number of learners to 80,000 will be significant.

Christine Pinsent-Johnson posted an interesting analysis of the Ontario budget increase which you can read at: https://policyproblems.wordpress.com/2017/06/22/lbs-budget-increase-85-million-and-80000-learners-by-2021/

Recently I prepared an update on new money/initiatives based mostly on the latest provincial/territorial budgets. I thought I would share it with you. If I’ve missed anything, have my information wrong or you have more up to date information, please let me know.

In NWT, Yukon and Nunavut, the three literacy coalitions have Office of Literacy and Essential Skill (OLES) money to do literacy work across the north. Three northern colleges had Northern Adult Basic Education (NABE) funds extended for two more years.

Quebec pledged $20 million to adult education, including $4 million to school boards for literacy programs, $200,000 to the Quebec Literacy Foundation, and an additional $1.3 million to companies to provide employees with literacy training.

The Ontario budget committed to enhancements to literacy programs but no dollar figure has been given yet.

In Alberta, $46 million for apprenticeship delivery and new training opportunities. $85 million to build basic foundational skills, including $80 million for English as a Second Language, skills and academic upgrading and occupational skills programs.

The New Brunswick government is earmarking a $7 million per year investment in literacy programming for both children and adults. A comprehensive literacy strategy will be released shortly.

British Columbia now charges for grade 11 and 12 upgrading; as anticipated, enrolment in ABE is down.

On April 12, Ontario’s Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development (MAESD) released a report detailing the findings of a program evaluation completed November 2016. The report is here, and here is an accompanying executive summary.

The findings are hard-hitting. Those in the field will finally see their concerns acknowledged, and meticulously documented in a ministry sponsored effort. Cathexis, the evaluation consultants, must be commended for producing such a transparent and accessible report, filled with powerful findings and useful data. This is a compelling wake-up call and, frankly, a revealing case study of the ineffective and damaging use of a high-stakes pay-for- performance management system—although that was not the explicit message, it’s pretty hard to ignore.

More amazing, is the tone and voice conveyed in the report. It’s not a distant, authoritative voice. The authors do not gloss over people’s concerns or attempt to reformulate those concerns using abstract categories or heavy-handed theoretical analysis. The case studies at the end of the report, particularly the one of an Indigenous literacy program, are astounding. I read example after example of disregard, managerial arrogance and the over-riding message that compliance to a faulty system must be upheld no matter what the cost to people and programs.

The report was released four months after a finalized version was completed, soon after a representative group from support organizations lobbied those in high-level leadership roles within the ministry. The release sends the message that the ministry has finally decided to respond to concerns that began to be documented soon after key elements of the pay-for-performance model were introduced in 2012. Accompanying the report and its executive summary are memos from the deputy minister and assistant deputy minister, stating that the ministry is ready to work with the field to address the report’s recommendations.

However, my worry is that these conversations could be curtailed, leading to some short-term solutions that fail to get at the under-pinning problems. My concern stems from reading a prominent statement appears in the introduction of the executive summary:

The LBS program is providing a vital, valued, and effective service to Ontarians. Its key components—the OALCF and the Performance Management Framework (PMF)—are well designed. However, serious problems have arisen in the implementation of these components.

It’s a divisive and troubling statement. I immediately thought, ‘Here we go again; shift all blame for the problems on to the field.’ Who else implements what policy analysts and others within the ministry have designed so “well”? Only after reading the report did I feel a bit better. There is no indication of blame in the report

I’m trying to figure out where the statement came from and why it was made. The mandate of the evaluation was to examine implementation and not design. So why include a prominent, comprehensive and evaluative statement about design? Despite the mandate, a couple of design issues are directly examined and one is the focus of a recommendation. In addition, design related problems are alluded to, although not fully explored, throughout the report, demonstrating it’s impossible to separate implementation from design. It’s unclear if the statement represents the ministry’s perspective—and was perhaps a suggested inclusion—or if this is the perspective of the evaluators. I have requested some context and possible references or sources from the ministry.

For those of you have followed the blog, my concern and recent projects with LBS partners, have been aimed squarely at design issues, and the misuse of international literacy testing levels, skills criteria and its information-processing pedagogy in the LBS performance management system. The design-implementation divide could be used to dismiss this work and limit discussions going forward. I see this happening already in a few of the recommendations. While most of the report’s recommendations are a sound response to identified problems, those related to the performance management framework, including its testing mechanisms need to be reconsidered.

Design is a fundamental problem that has a direct impact on implementation. For the most part, the field seems to be implementing exactly what has been designed. The report didn’t suggest that programs have gone rogue, making up their own tests (Milestones and Culminating Tasks) or creating their own learner satisfaction surveys (two ideas worth thinking about in future discussions) or ignoring mandatory performance target reporting (Service Quality Standards or SQS). Even on-the-ground confusions and mixed messages are not simply an implementation problem, since the dispersed organizational structure within MAESD and the multiple roles of 130 field consultants (Employment Training Consultants or ETCs) who have responsibility for LBS and other Employment Ontario programs contribute directly to the confusion and poor communication. Overall, it seems, the field struggles to implement what has been designed and deal with how the ministry is designed.

The field struggles to implement what has been designed and deal with how the ministry is designed

What has been designed is a high-stakes PMF that ties program performance directly to funding using a series of performance measurement mechanisms, including three high-stakes tests (Milestones, Culminating Tasks and the still-to-be-determined Learner Gains tool), a not so useful learner satisfaction survey and a listing of suitability criteria that doesn’t reflect the reality of many programs. The mechanisms have been designed either by the ministry or by consultants hired to do the work.

The evaluators articulate the field’s issues with two of the test systems—Milestones and Culminating Tasks—and recommend that their “merit” be reviewed. This is encouraging. However, they don’t make a direct connection between the problems and test design, even though a recent AlphaPlus study on the Milestones came to this conclusion. They do however recommend that the suitability mechanism be redesigned, an indication that the evaluators are willing to extend the mandate of the evaluation past implementation and into design issues in some circumstances but not others. Overall, there is also some confusion in the way that the OALCF is examined in the report, which I will look at in a future post.

According to the memo from the assistant deputy minister, the ministry will be open to “ensuring the design and management of the LBS program” so that it “supports all learners and all service providers” and acknowledges that not all tools are “available and/or appropriate for all learners and/or service providers.” To facilitate this discussion it will be important to fully understand inherent design issues, including the use of a pay-for performance PMF in a under-resourced program that sees an incredibly diverse range of adult learners who attend a range of programs for anywhere from a few weeks to a few years. There are nearly no homogeneous elements in LBS such as time spent in the program, age and background of learners, funding per learner, class/learning group sizes, educator training, and curricula. But the minisitry insists on the use of the same measures and targets for all.

How the ministry is designed also has direct impacts on programs and even the design of the mechanisms used in the PMF. MAESD’s dispersed and siloed organizational structure parses responsibility for LBS across several organizational units with no apparent and sustained connection between those units, and, more importantly, no sustained and meaningful connection with the field. Since LBS was integrated into Employment Ontario, I’ve seen a constantly revolving rotation of new names in various positions, and I’m never quite sure who I should even contact about a particular question. Directly related to the siloed structure is a preference for public administration and managerial expertise over content expertise among policy analysts and the majority of ETCs.

This has serious consequences. Policy analysts are in charge of developing a complex high-stakes assessment system without any assessment, curriculum, educational, literacy development and adult learning expertise. This then leads to an over-reliance on a small pool of consultants, promoting particular products and appraoches, and a limited ability to fully evaluate the relevance, rigour and usefulness of their products. The ETCs, in turn, must oversee an educational program without any knowledge of education and learning.

Then, the siloed and parsed structure within the ministry must somehow connect with a rather complex structure within LBS that includes regional networks, stream organizations and sector organizations. Of course, upending the organizational structure of Employment Ontario is not likely on the table, but understanding the multiple design challenges related to both MAESD’s internal organizational structures and the LBS structure are important when discussing possible responses and solutions moving forward

Let’s have a truly collaborative discussion and put all problems on the table, whether framed as design or implementation issues, in order to think about and better articulate more comprehensive and lasting solutions.

The Ontario Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development (AESD) released today the report of the evaluation of its Literacy and Basic Skills (LBS) Program prepared by Cathexis Consulting Inc.*

The key message of the evaluation is described as:

The LBS program is providing a vital, valued, and effective service to Ontarians. Its key components—the OALCF and the Performance Management Framework (PMF)—are well designed. However, serious problems have arisen in the implementation of these components. These problems stem from fragmented leadership, poor relations between the Ministry and the field, threats to sustainability (including inadequate funding) and a lack of a clear vision for whom the program is intended to serve. The Ministry and the field must work collaboratively to rebuild cooperative relations and clarify LBS’s mission, so that the program can address Ontario’s literacy needs with greater efficacy, efficiency, and accountability.

AESD’s posting of this report is a positive first step towards responding to the evaluation findings. The evaluation reinforces the value of LBS and the work of the practitioners and organizations across the province. For those outside Ontario, the evaluation provides an insight to how a large jurisdiction like Ontario organizes and manages its literacy delivery system.

Today the Minister of Finance tabled the 2017 federal budget (http://www.budget.gc.ca/2017/home-accueil-en.html). While there is no mention of additional funds for adult literacy, the budget contains a number of items for those interested in adult learning and literacy as well as workplace training, workforce development and skills training.

I must say that this budget is chock full of social policy initiatives, the like I’ve not seen in 10 years. I was invited to the budget lockup with over 100 stakeholders. From the conversations around me, people seemed to like what they saw, felt they had been heard, but, of course, thought more could be done on their issue. The last chapter of the budget is a gender-based analysis of the budget measures – a welcome innovation. The budget contains so many placeholders for positive and progressive action.

Canada Job Fund replaced

The government is proposing to create Workforce Development Agreements. These agreements, to be negotiated with the provinces and territories, will consolidate into one agreement the Canada Job Fund Agreements (CJFA), the Labour Market Agreements for Persons with Disabilities (LMAPD) and the Targeted Initiative for Older Workers (TIOW). The idea is to give the provinces and territories greater flexibility and make everything simpler. $900 million will fund these new agreements over the next 6 years starting in 2017-18.

The budget does not indicate the final total amount available for the new Workforce Development Agreements. While the budget indicates that the $900 million is additional funds, the TIOW was scheduled to end March 31, 2017 and the CJF on March 31, 2020. Below is my best ‘guesstimate’ of how much money will be available for the Workforce Development Agreements.

$ millions

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

2020-21

2021-22

2022-23

TIOW

–

–

–

–

–

–

LMAPD

222

222

222

222

222

222

CJF

550

550

550

–

–

–

Budget 2017

200

300

400

550

625

Not provided

TOTAL

972

1072

1172

772

847

222

The new agreements will allow the provinces to provide labour market programming as they see fit. Funding like the Canada Job Grant could continue but there will be no mandatory targets according to officials. If the provinces and territories see value in a program like the TIOW, I’m certain they’ll advocate for that funding to continue along with the funds original budgeted for the Canada Job Fund.

As you know, I have been highly critical of the Canada Job Fund. It has resulted in fewer vulnerable people being served and became a vehicle for employers to pay for training their existing workforce. I’m optimistic that these new Workforce Development Agreements will better meet the needs of the unemployed and the low skilled, but of course, the devil is in the detail.

Labour Market Development Agreements

The government indicated its intent to undertake a serious reform of the Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDAs) following a consultation last year. The budget however does not give details about the nature of the reform. The budget proposes an additional $1.8 billion over the next six years. The LMDAs provide support to those who are EI eligible. As the number of EI eligible is far less than the total of unemployed, the Workforce Development Agreements are designed to fill that gap.

New Labour Market Stakeholder Organization

A new organization will be created to:

Identify the skills sought and required by Canadian workers

Explore new and innovative approaches to skills development

Share information and analysis to help inform future skills investment and programming

The organization will work in partnership with “willing” provinces and territories, the private sector, educational institutions and not-for-profit organizations. $225 million over four years will kick-start the organization with $75 million after that.

This is welcome news. After the demise of the Canadian Labour and Business Centre which did much of this work (and where I worked), the opportunity for stakeholder involvement in skills development and training was lacking. Having the labour market partners at the table will result in a better system. I encourage the government to ensure all stakeholders are there including labour unions, adult learning and literacy organizations, and indigenous organizations. And of course, I would look to this organization to take a leadership role on literacy and adult learning.

Support for Adult Learning and Training

A number of measures support adult learning and training:

The Northern Adult Basic Education program (NABE) has been extended for the next three years with $14.7 million.

Amendments would allow EI recipients to pursue self-funded training and maintain their EI status (today, you must be actively looking for work to maintain your benefits). ($132.4 million over four years, and $37.9 for each year thereafter).

Today, adults who take occupational skills courses below the post-secondary level (e.g. second language training, basic literacy and numeracy) at a college or university cannot claim the Tuition Tax Credit while those who go to a non-post-secondary institution can. The budget proposes to allow everyone to claim the credit regardless of where they take their programming.

A three-year pilot project will test new approaches to make it easier for adult learners to qualify for Canada Student Loans and Grants ($287.2 million over 3 years starting in 2018-19).

Support is also being provided for Pathways to Education Canada. This longstanding innovative program works in low income communities to help youth graduate from high school.

Support for Skills Development and Training for Indigenous Peoples

The Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy (ASETS) is a parallel program to the LMDAs, managed by indigenous organizations. The program will receive $50 million in the coming year while work is underway to renew and improve the program.

Other Items of Interest

The budget has funds set aside to improve the recognition of foreign credentials.

Work continues to provide high-speed internet for all Canadians no matter where they live. This is critical for ensuring access to online and distance learning in northern, remote, and rural communities.

Commitments are made for early learning and childcare which will help efforts to build strong literacy skills in the early years.